6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Novosibirsk.
7.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. The Law of 21 July 1997 on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions (“the Pensions Act”) introduced, from 1 February 1998 onwards, a new method for calculating pensions. The idea behind this method, based on what is known as an “individual pensioner coefficient”, was to link the pension to the pensioner's previous earnings.
8.  The authority in charge of the applicant's pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk (“the Agency”), fixed the applicant's coefficient at 0.525. The applicant challenged the Agency's decision in the Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. He argued that his coefficient should be 0.7.
9.  On 26 August 1999 the District Court found for the applicant, considering that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Act. In particular, it held as follows:
“... the vague wording of the Article [Article 4 of the 1997 Pensions Act] permits the law to be interpreted in two ways, and this has resulted in the unfounded reduction of calculated pensions and in pensioners' complaints.”
The District Court decided that the Agency was to recalculate the applicant's pension using a coefficient of 0.7 from 1 February 1998.
10.  The Agency appealed against the judgment. On 11 November 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment, which became enforceable on the same day. The judgment was never executed.
11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry”) issued an Instruction on the “Application of Limitations” established by the Pensions Act (“the Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the Pensions Act.
12.  On 24 January 2000 the Agency lodged an application with the District Court for the reconsideration of the applicant's case owing to newly discovered circumstances. They asked the court to take account of the Instruction, which supported their arguments that had been rejected by the court during the initial examination of the case. They pointed out that the Ministry was empowered to give an official interpretation of laws.
13.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, contrary to what the complainants had suggested, the Ministry of Labour had not acted ultra vires in issuing the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.
14.  From 1 August 2000, following changes to the pension regulations, the applicant's pension was calculated based on a coefficient of 0.7125. After 1 May 2001 the coefficient was fixed at 0.9.
15.  On 6 June 2001 the District Court examined the Agency's request. The Agency submitted at the hearing that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The applicant argued that the Instruction was subordinate to the Pensions Act, that it was not a newly discovered circumstance and that the Agency had missed the statutory time-limit for requesting the reconsideration.
16.  The District Court noted that the Instruction had been issued after the judgment in the case had become enforceable, that the Pensions Act itself had not changed and that the Instruction had been required because of the “different interpretation of the [Pensions] Act's provisions by claimants, officials and the RF Pension Fund”. The court further noted that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court. It held as follows:
“When delivering its judgment on 26 August 1999 the court interpreted the provisions of the [Pensions] Act on its own. The newly discovered circumstances in this case are the official interpretation of the [Pensions] Act in the Instruction of the RF Ministry of Labour and the case-law of the RF Supreme Court”.
The court noted that the Agency's application had reached the court on 24 January 2000 and that, therefore, it was not time barred.
17.  In a decision of 6 June 2001 the District Court granted the Agency's application, under Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, quashed the judgment of 26 August 1999, as upheld on 11 November 1999, and ordered a fresh examination of the case. It stated that its decision was final and not subject to appeal.
18.  As a result of the fresh examination of the case the District Court delivered a judgment of 21 June 2001 in which it relied on the Instruction and rejected the applicant's claims in full. The applicant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the court had unlawfully reopened the case and quashed the judgment of 26 August 1999. On 11 September 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 21 June 2001.